Agenda item

Presented by Kath Heathcote, Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development.

The Chair introduced the Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager, Kathryn Heathcote who was in attendance to speak to Members in relation to the introduction of Multi-disciplinary Teams for dealing with Empty Homes (for copy of presentation see file of minutes).

The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager thanked Members for the chance to speak and referred to the report within the Agenda papers.  The Committee was reminded that performance relating to Empty Homes had been reported to Councillors in October 2011 and that information relating to how the move to Multi-disciplinary Teams had impacted upon performance would be explained.

Members were referred to staff structure diagrams and noted that for the period 2009/10 that with a staffing compliment of 4.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs), 20 empty homes were brought back into use (approximately 4 per member of staff) and for the period 2010/11, 48 empty homes were brought back into use (approximately 11 per member of staff).  Councillors noted that this was against targets of 80 properties to be brought back into use each year.

The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager explained that following the adoption of the Durham Housing Strategy in November 2010 a lengthy review of how DCC dealt with private sector housing culminated in the adoption of a Private Sector Housing Strategy in 2011.  Members were reminded that DCC had taken a brave decision to focus on the delivery of key services and not to continue offering of all services, taking into account staffing, deliverability and a need to prioritise those services.  It was noted that a two-tier approach was utilised working to the understanding that there was a finite staffing resource and there was no reasonable way of providing a “blanket” service across the whole area.  Councillors learned that the approach was to focus work in the 8 identified housing regeneration areas, those with the worst housing stock conditions and highest levels of deprivation.  It was noted however, that a “safety net” provision would be maintained for those empty homes outside of the 8 regeneration areas, where properties reached a level that they were deemed to be contribution to issues of blight, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and so on.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager explained that the target for 2011/12 was still 80 properties to be brought back into use, 67 within the 8 regeneration areas, 13 in the “safety net” category.  Members noted the tension between the need to be reactive to issues that may occur and to be able to focus Officers' time on planned work to bring empty homes back into use.

The Committee were reminded of the needs under the MTFP to make savings, RED undertook a formal restructuring process to be implemented in April 2012, however, it was recognised that there had been a need to bring into effect an interim arrangement that would mirror as much as possible the proposed future structure in delivering area-based Housing Regeneration, as shown by further structure diagrams within the report.

Members noted that the area-based multi-disciplinary teams had been effectively in place since partway through Quarter 2 2011/12 and that figures showed that for Quarter 2, 9 properties had been brought back into use, and in Quarter 3, 7 properties had been brought back into use, 6 in regeneration areas, 1 being a “safety net” property.  It was noted that this demonstrated that the policy and approach were working, giving a 6:1 ratio of regeneration area to “safety net” properties being brought back into use.  Members noted that the projected performance was 8 properties being brought back into use per member of staff, though this was with there being 3 vacant posts within the section.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager added that this showed a higher relative performance per member of staff and that the area in which a Project Manager was in post had the highest level of performance.  It was noted that there was a need to ensure robust figures that were directly attributable to the actions of Officers so that the effectiveness and “value for money” of the teams could be measured.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager added that attempts to benchmark performance against other Local Authorities had proven difficult as there was no “like-for-like” comparison.

The Committee were informed that work was being undertaken to fill the three vacant posts and to continue to embed the performance culture within the service.  Members noted that performance equated to a cost to DCC of £4,000 per empty home brought back into use and that a funding from the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) had been secured to bringing empty homes back into use, a sum of £656,000 for the period 2012-2015.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager explained that a comparative figure of other regeneration schemes carried out be that had brought empty homes showed that the cost per property was around £17,000 (a HCA figure), not as cost effective as those brought back into use by DCC.

Members learned that other funding was available for “clusters” of a minimum of 100 homes and in areas where vacancy rates were 10% or more, however, there was a requirement for 100% match funding from DCC.  It was explained that areas of high vacancy had been looked at such as Easington Colliery, Chilton, Deans Bank, Craghead, Coundon Grange and so on. 

The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager added that the private sector leasing scheme was ongoing, though little interest had been shown and that there had been 12 enquires as regards the DCC Financial Assistance loan, with one 1 loan actually going ahead.  Members were informed that this could be seen as an area that would need reviewing. 

The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager explained that 2 Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) had been applied for to the Residential Property Tribunal, which had prompted works on behalf of the owners.  The Committee were informed of the Public Relations Strategy for the identified regeneration areas to highlight where DCC has improved housing stock and the street scene so that these areas attract more tenants, with Members being shown examples of properties at Craghead.

The Chair thanked the Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager and asked Members for their questions. 

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager for a very good presentation and asked whether targets were for 640 properties being brought back into use over 20 years, with the County Durham Plan (CDP) stating 2,000 empty properties back into use; whether the new structure had more management posts relative to Officers and when, or indeed if, the 3 vacant posts on the establishment would be filled.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager explained that prior to the area based approach, there were 5 management positions, and this had reduced to 3 in the new approach.  It was added that the three vacant posts were not being carried for future savings, they had been built into the new structure as posts required for the service and they were currently out to advert and hopefully all 3 posts would be filled presently.

Councillor M Wilkes added that as empty properties would now be eligible for a “full” council tax bill, would it be cost effective to send information as regards the financial assistance available via DCC together with the council tax bill.  The Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager noted that this was a good idea, information regarding Housing Benefit, Council Tax and Financial Assistance could all be included in that mail out.  As regards the CDP target of 2,000 empty homes being brought back into use, the Housing Renewal and Improvement Manager noted that the key to meeting this figure would be in achieving good levels of economic growth within the County which was partly an issue for DCC, partly due to larger economic forces.

Resolved:    

(i)         That Members continue to monitor the performance of the “multi-disciplinary teams”, allowing more time for the new arrangements to fully bed-in before making a final determination as to whether or not they are improving the Council’s performance on empty homes.

(ii)        That Members direct Officers within the service to complete a robust   benchmarking exercise to determine whether the current targets for   empty homes are achievable, and to measure and report             performance against that of other high performing authorities.

(iii)       That future reports include data on the vacancy rates in each of the Council’s priority regeneration areas (given that there is an indisputable link between vacancy rates and the sustainability of neighbourhoods) to determine whether the Council’s regeneration efforts are having a positive influence on vacancy rates in addition to continuing to measure the positive outcomes from direct intervention the Empty Homes and Private Landlord Initiatives Officers.